Jump to content
Hookah Forum


Vested Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Kofod

  • Rank
    Emir - Of the Emerald Argileh
  1. Kofod

    Importing to the UK.

    I dont think shisha would fall into herbal smoking - everything that is supposed to be "smoked" is tobacco in some sort and will thus fall into one of the categories mentioned - so no luck there. I am of course not totally familiar with the UK rules - but tobacco is under the EU "umbrella" of harmonized national duties (with alkohol, parfume and such). With these rules the member countries can decide something on their own, like the rate and how its paid and such but not much more than that. What tobacco is and what you can put duty on is a solely EU matter.If not the article by "herbal" means incense or something like that, then its incorrect.It is also incorrect with regards to snuf - bagged snuf is illegal except in Sweden, regular snuf on the other hans is somewhat regulated but not at all illegal. (note; bagged snuf is snuf in smal "teabags" that makes snuf more convenient, doesnt stick to the teeths etc.)I cannot imagine the duty being as high as mentioned either - but that I dont know.There's no difference with regards to personal/small or business/big import.
  2. Kofod

    Importing to the UK.

    HiThe customs are 74 % for all of EU. (of the total expenses; freight price insurance etc.)Tobacco duties are 33.5 £/kg tobacco in Denmark. I believe a little lower in GB (and cigarettes a little higher).On top of that (price+freight, etc.+customs+tobacco duties) you add import VAT. This is the same rate as the normal VAT rate.And yes, as in Canada as well as EU, the label "present" will not change anything regarding rules if taken in customs. It might or might not give you a better chance of not being taken in customs - I dont know.
  3. Kofod

    HookahHub.com - 20% Discount!

    DrunkenWizard; Doesn't seem like you are one of the honest and genuine people that they asked for an oppinion to their honest and genuine list 
  4. Kofod

    Hi from Oslo, Norway

    Hi,An welcome to the forum - theres also Alen here, he's swedish
  5. Ok - I will think about that - It would be a good way to get laylana and havana. Both brands that I haven't tried. May be I'll give you an email on the webpage later then.
  6. Sad thing your not in the EU - It will probably be hell getting the tobacco through customs and end with double taxing.Maybe you should have the pipe pictures be thumbs that you can click for bigger pictures - people like to se details and such when browsing pipes.
  7. Kofod

    Terrorist Attacks

    [quote name='Tangiers']For that matter, instead of arbitrarily attacking Afghanistan as an AL Queda base, we could have attacked another country that Al Queda had bases in, and sleeper cells, like Spain, the UK or Germany.  [/quote]Or America? They have sleeper cells.The destinction I would like to bring forward is of course that when attacking Afghanistan - both the regime and the Al Queda organisation where an opposition (in a casus belli degree). Therefore we could attack the "country".Same does not apply for Spain, the UK or Germany - or the USA. So we need not go to war with Spain, the UK or Germany - or the USA.
  8. Thx for the feedback on the termometer. So to what extent do you cook it? I made some different runs to get varying degrees of water out more/less cooking. Next phase is to get them through the "grease in" process to se what degree of cooking gives what "grease-ability" and which end result. I think some of the hardest cooked seem i little to dryed out - but time will tell - the procedure of experimenting for the ChemEng.Getting over to that - yes I am a chemical engineer - master of chemical engineering and applied chemistry, profiled in advanced phase equilibria modelling & oil and petroleum recovery and processing. Scaringly long and serious like!! I am currently in the getting out of uni over to something else limbo.
  9. Pimpy - You have found out that its all a balance some time is good some more time can be bad - heath can somehow be good and under some circumstances cold is cool.With regards to your comments on my #1 and the ice - here you have gotta remember that we have (at least) two variables, time and temperature. As I told cooling down will destroy the emulsion - but it takes some time to.When you use ice you have the right chemistry coming to you, meeting the right/wrong physics. Going fast through the chamber your smoke will give the right chemistry (composition, no harsh stuf) and the right physics, because your mouth loves the cold. So the smoothness of the smoke from the ice hookah is a physical result not another chemistry of the smoke.Letting the smoke stay in the chamber with ice will give the physics time to change the chemistry of the smoke - so puffing now will give the wrong chemistry (more or less) and the right physics come to your mouth.Getting back to the milk - you can heat the milk to a high/wrong temperature - but you know that even though you put the milk under a temperature that will destroy it - it will take time before the milk will part and have lumps etc. So aware of the time,temperature function you dare make a glass of warm milk Being only aware of the temperature dependency you dare not
  10. Pimpy - thats a good question but also with a very "open" answer since it could depend on a wide range of factors and happen for a ton of different reason. So I can give you some of the reasons - maybe some of them will seem likely for the coditions you have with your own hookah.Temperature/exposure to cold. Hookah smoke (as we want it) is formed under specific conditions, especially the right heat. Smoke is an emulsion (specific mixture and arrangement of components) of gas and solid particles - it will change at other temperatures, some solids will "fall out" and in the end all components will part to their own phase, and the emulsion is gone. Similarily milk is a is an emulsion of water and fat - you know what happens when the milk is put under a temperature that is "bad" for the emulsion/milk - it parts (and other uncool changes occur).An alternative "drainage" of the good stuff in the smoke is the prolonged exposure time to the water surface - going from the smoke to the water phase is time dependant.The last one is not about smoke that has gone "old and bad". This happens if the cooking process of the tobacco alter when not puffing. Lack of airflow in the head can cause the same part tobacco and surrounding air to get over cooked. So if the harsh taste is still there a few puffs after evacuating the chamber you probably don't have stale and old bad smoke but new and bad smoke (or both).
  11. Thx Tangiers.Being a chemical engineer myself I did know most of the issues concerning Propylene glycol - the stuff I have found I am just not sure if the manufacturer could have put any additives to it depending on what they want to use it for.With regards to the cooking tobacco I follow you so far that you basically try out to gain emperical knowledge since you can't tell when an "unstudied" tobacco will cook (water boil of). So you look for the phasechanges revealed by the temperature profile, makes sense - but how do you monitor the temperature of tobacco, I would presume it would only work for liquids? Can you really get good temperature readings on an amount og cut tobacco?I guess my next step is try the cooking out using your advise. Going for the "house keeper" approach (I share the same philosophy of thinking out of the kitchen) I will take a small deep pan, a termometer, a stove heat source and some tobacco and just go ahead with it.Thx again.
  12. Tangiers a little question.Everything you describe is exactly as I my self have come to. The categorization of compounds etc.I don't manufacture or make moassel bussinesswise but I do make some flavours that both myself and my friends (and friends friends) likes and requests or "orders" from me. Must mean that I am doing something right, and that its not only me thinking so. And I think its an ok result since I only started in December and dont use propylene glycol (have a hard time getting food grade, and I dont dare use something that could be intended for antifreeze or likewise).You mention that you cook the tobacco - that interest me. Seems like a way to get the tobacco "emptied out" to get the good stuff easier in afterwards (and you probably would'nt have mentioned it if you did'nt have good results with it ). So I inquire - what are the details with the cooking stuf? As I would be very interested in trying that out to.
  13. Kofod


    Tangiers - of course, hookah tar and cigarette tar are not similar, but wether the difference is like you describe it is hard to say. My own belief is also that the tar in moassel less damaging, but that it just kinda flushes right out or absorbs in the lungs because it is watersoluble is maybe a little optimistic. I dont know if glycerine or other compounds can be metabolized if ending up in the lungs.I think some of the difference comes with cigarette tar particles being more heavier compounds, more carbon ->  closer to what we call tar in other contexts. This would also create an effect where hookah tar is easier to get out of the lungs than cigarette tar.But this issue is definetly something for the science to address - not just focusing on the quantitive difference between cigarette and hookah smoke but rather the qualitative diffence in the smoke. (Futhermore I am quite sceptical on the Lebanese results, so I dont think the quantitive results so far can be used for much - they maybe not performed correctly since some things does'nt add up from a chemist point of view).
  14. Kofod


    With regards to the "representing hookah smoking" issue. The work Eissenberg refers to (i presume) is this article: [url="http://webfea-lb.fea.aub.edu.lb/aerosol/downloads/argilehpap"]http://webfea-lb.fea.aub.edu.lb/aerosol/do...oads/argilehpap[/url] er1.pdfBy the mentioned lebanese group.Their aim is to reflect that of a typical smoking session seen in cafe´s of Beirut.They set up a typical cafe pipe with nakhla and one three kings coal. It seems they have made thoughts in order to replicate real conditions. Though it is reasonable to question wether it is sufficient. In my own oppinion I would think that the system does not take into account periods with "bad smoke" or "burning pipe" -> we can have a situation where the machine inhales smoke in times where a human smoker would have discontinued or changed the smoking setting.With regards to the smoke. No burning has to take place for solids to be in smoke - in fact, no smoke no solids. Smoke is an emulsion of gas and solids. So your smoke does contain solids. Furthermore, even vaporized glycerine will show as tar in a test - if its not water or nicotine then its tar.That being said - I also share the oppinion that quality moassel with right amount of glycerine burns more lightly, gives more white, less harsch smoke which I will presume is more waterfilled and with less tar. But the fact remains as long as glycerine is not water, its tar (and not good to have in the lungs) and as long as your smoke tastes of something else than water and/or nicotine there´s tar in it.
  15. Kofod


    Eissenberg - thx for your input. I am very much in line with your point of view. Where I differ is of course in that I have chosen to smoke waterpipe. But I am equally interested in seing an uncovering of the health effects from smoking. Both to make a decision on a more enlightened background and possibly alter the way of smoking to a relative more healthy manner. So in that respect we share the same goal as smokers and researchers - despite the commen conception that these two groups are somewhat on "opposite sides".